Paper to be presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association Friday, April 19 2019, 8.00 – 09.45 a.m. Manchester Hyatt, San Diego, United States RASMUS KARLSSON* Conflicting Temporalities and the Ecomodernist Vision of Rewilding * Rasmus Karlsson, PhD Associate Professor Department of Political Science, Umeå University, Sweden [email protected] Biographical note: Dr Rasmus Karlsson is an Associate Professor in political science at Umeå University. He has published widely on climate mitigation policy, development ethics, and global affairs. This paper is currently under review for an edited volume entitled “Non-Human Nature in World Politics: Theory and Practice” which will be published by Springer in 2020. 1 Conflicting Temporalities and the Ecomodernist Vision of Rewilding Rasmus Karlsson1 Abstract Ecomodernism offers a progressive and humanist vision of the Anthropocene, one in which publicly funded innovation has made possible both universal prosperity and planetary‐scale rewilding. However, given the present primitive state of technology, ecomodernism is surely guilty of fabulism as its realisation would depend on technologies that may not be available for many decades. Despite this, ecomodernists argue that there is an overriding moral imperative to accelerate the transition to a fully integrated high‐energy planet even if this accentuates the short‐term need for solar radiation management. The aim of this chapter is to review the debate between ecomodernists and traditional environmentalists in relation to these conflicting temporalities. It is suggested that science may be of surprisingly little help in settling the underlying macro‐political disputes. 1 Introduction Considering how far we have come as a species over the last two or three hundred years, it would be very sad if the journey would end here. Or if the rest of the journey would be only for the few, leaving behind a planet that has been made largely unrecognisable and uninhabitable. It is thus not surprising that the natural impulse is one of scaling back (Crist, 2018), to think that there is a way of unmaking modernity and harmonising society with non‐human nature. According to ecomodernism (Asafu‐ Adjaye et al., 2015), that impulse however is fundamentally misguided. As a progressive and humanist vision of the future, ecomodernism instead suggests that only by doubling down on an Enlightenment trajectory of democratically guided scientific progress will it be possible to meet global human needs while restoring an ecologically vibrant planet (Symons, 2019). Essentially, the ecomodernist vision is about reaffirming pluralism, about envisioning an open‐ended future where some can be punk rockers and others stockbrokers, where people can live different lives and where the human condition can remain as contradictory and confusing as ever. Whereas traditional environmentalism seeks to impose a singular ethic of sustainability (Curren & Metzger, 2017), ecomodernism is cautioned by historical attempts to ensure ethical homogeneity and social purity. Rather than to fundamentally remake or rewire humanity, the ecomodernist vision seeks to reconcile the broad emancipatory forces of the last centuries with the natural environment through publicly funded breakthrough innovation. Yet, given the current primitive state of technology, ecomodernism is here surely guilty of fabulism and its optimism about the future may appear “not just self‐delusional but outright dangerous” (Arias‐Maldonado, 2018:139). 1 Dr Rasmus Karlsson, Associate Professor Department of Political Science Umeå University, Sweden e‐mail: [email protected] 1 To make any sense, ecomodernist optimism has to be looked upon from the vantage point of the deep future, when technology exists to freely manipulate matter at the molecular level (Umbrello & Baum, 2018), rendering both the production and transportation of material goods unnecessary and when abundant energy has not only overcome practically all forms of environmental determinism but also made possible climate restoration (Dorr, 2016). Fantastic or even unrealistic as such a future may seem, ecomodernism is premised on the view that the relative distance from where we are today to that future is far shorter than the distance to anything remotely resembling “sustainability” as conceived by traditional environmentalism. In this, ecomodernism is in fact founded on a grim reading of current environmental trends which fully acknowledges the risk of catastrophic climate change (Pereira & Viola, 2018). If long‐term sustainability could be achieved by, say, a twenty or thirty per cent reduction in economic activity, then “degrowth” would be the obvious and preferable response (Kallis et al., 2018). Yet, in a world of almost eight billion people, the level of depopulation and economic contraction needed is so great that it would be politically and socially unfathomable, especially in the light of competing national interests and widely shared material aspirations. As such, rather than seeing a more integrated world as a threat to sustainability (Myers & Kent, 2003) and erecting new barriers to migration (Cafaro & Staples, 2009), ecomodernism takes the opposite view, that only in an open world of equal opportunities will it be possible to summon the political momentum necessary for effective environmental action and avoid the kind of costly distractions over migration policy that have nearly derailed liberal democracy itself in recent years. Captured in the metaphor of the “high‐energy planet” (Karlsson, 2018), ecomodernism seeks to fully eschew Malthusian reductionism and its polarising demand‐side framing of environmental problems and replace it with a unifying commitment to a supply‐side energy revolution (Shellenberger et al., 2008). Yet, it is clear from the onset that there is a considerable temporal distance between the present and the hypothetical fruits of that revolution. In the meantime, any attempt to take global development seriously would lead to further emissions overshoot and accentuate the need for controversial forms of climate engineering. The aim of this contribution is to problematise these conflicting temporalities and, in particular, their implications for non‐human nature. However, prior to that, the terms of the debate between ecomodernists and traditional environmentalists is reviewed with an emphasis on the controversy surrounding nuclear energy. On this basis, it is then argued that science is of surprisingly little help when it comes to settling these macro‐political disputes or for determining what should count as empirical evidence of failure and success respectively. The chapter concludes by suggesting that, as the environmental crisis worsens, the stakes in these debates are likely to rise further yet, with both nuclear energy and proposals for climate engineering taking centre stage. 2 The terms of the debate With regards to non‐human nature, ecomodernism2 represents a philosophical shift from the management of nature to the liberation of nature (Symons & Karlsson, 2018). In the very long run, ecomodernism envisions a comprehensive decoupling of the economy from the environment, either through atomically precise manufacturing or large‐scale space colonisation. In the meantime, ecomodernists propose a gradual substitution of natural products with synthetic ones and the use of 2 For the purpose of this chapter, I have used The Ecomodernist Manifesto from 2015 as the primary source of what ecomodernism entails (Asafu‐Adjaye et al., 2015). The manifesto was an effort to forge a consensus position among 18 leading ecomodernist thinkers. This means that I do not specifically engage with post‐ecological perspectives but rather build on the seminal work of Martin Lewis (1992) with regards to the politics of non‐ human nature. 2 agricultural intensification in order to spare marginal lands. In essence, while traditional environmentalism seeks to re‐embed society in nature, ecomodernism advocates greater separation as a pathway to planetary‐scale rewilding.3 Among its critics, this idea has been misunderstood as some kind of opposition to family farms or wilderness hikes whereas it is only about minimising large‐scale interventions in nature, such as those caused by mining, forestry or energy production. Similarly, other critics have suggested that ecomodernists “celebrate the end of nature” (Fremaux & Barry, 2019:10) when a more open‐minded reading of ecomodernist texts would make it clear that what is driving the ecomodernist project in the first place is precisely a moral concern for non‐human nature and a desire to end human domination. Beyond such elementary misunderstandings, ecomodernists diverge from traditional environmentalists in how they understand the broader cosmic setting of the human enterprise. Early pioneers of what is today known as ecomodernism, such as the 2019 recipient of the “Breakthrough Paradigm Award”4 Stewart Brand, expressed a keen interest in space colonisation (Brand, 1977; McCray, 1993), a prospect that fundamentally alters the ethical context in which the ecological crisis is to be understood (Gott, 1993:319). Rather than accepting the subtractionist understanding of traditional environmental ethics in which the best would be for humanity not to exist, the possibility of humanity becoming a multi‐planetary species and thereby securing not only its own long‐term survival but that of life more generally, profoundly recasts the terms of the debate. Similarly, when